The validity of a marriage registered without a prior marriage ceremony and its recognition under the State Amendment to Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2019 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2015 in O.S.No.76 of 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, dismissing the suit.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Court below is the appellant before this Court. The parties, for the ease of understanding, is referred in the same rank as before the Trial Court.

2. The Second Appeal arises out of a suit O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The above suit was filed by the appellant herein for declaration that the marriage registered in Serial number 329 of the year 2006 with Marriage Registrar Office, ORB, Cuddalore-1 is null and void. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is working as a labour contractor in Aurofood Pvt. Ltd., and the defendant was his colleague, they had developed a friendship and the defendant proposed marriage to the plaintiff. Though initially the plaintiff had an idea of marrying the defendant later he dropped the idea since, he had an elder brother and a younger sister to get married. However, the defendant tried to convince him by stating that they could enter into a formal registration of their marriage to ensure that they will get married in future. It is his case that he is not able to withstand the pressure and had therefore gone to the registrar-s office at Cuddalore along with the defendant to enquire about the procedure for registering the marriage. The document writer had arranged for everything and they were asked to subscribe their signatures on the documents shown to them in the office of the marriage Registrar, ORB, Cuddalore. The document would show that the plaintiff and the defendant did not know the contents of what they were signing. The plaintiff applied for registration copy of certificate on 15.07.2008 and only then he came to know that the plaintiff had married the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that such marriage has not been solemnized as stated in the marriage certificate, the name of the persons mentioned in the marriage certificate as witnesses were fictitious characters. The plaintiff would submit that they had gone to the Registrar Office only to gather the details required for registering the marriage. The plaintiff would submit that the parties have been living separately from the date of the alleged marriage and the marriage was never given effect to. Taking advantage of the registration of marriage, the defendant held out threats to the plaintiff to compel him to marry her unmindful of the family conditions of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff had come forward with the suit in question.

3. The defendant had filed the written statement inter-alia denying the various allegations contained in the plaint and she has stated that the registration was done with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It is her case that she and the plaintiff had fallen in love with each other and had been living together even before the registration of the marriage. The plaintiff had deliberately suppressed this fact in his plaint. The plaintiff had promised the defendant that he would marry her and none else. It is her contention that the marriage ceremony had taken place in full public view and the same was registered on 27.04.2006 with the consent of both spouses. The appellant is now trying to wriggle out of the marriage. She therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court on considering the evidence framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff can claim to declare the marriage registered in the year 2006 between the plaintiff and the defendant as null and void?

2. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff had examined 3 witnesses